Late yesterday evening the Mail Sports ran a story claiming that Tony Carr has been left distraught by the club’s decision to offer him redundancy after 43 years loyal service, during which time he has earned the Hammers a multi-million profit on transfer fees. The piece points out that the combined incoming transfer fees from the sale of Rio Ferdinand, Frankie Lampard, Michael Carrick, Joe Cole, Jermaine Defoe and Glen Johnson amount to £50m! Yet, the club has allegedly imposed on Carr a harsh choice of a much reduced 1 day a week role or a a statutory minimum redundancy package of £14,000.
It appears that Tony Carr has decided to accept the £14,000 package, to break possibly the last surviving club link with the famous Ron Greenwood era of the 1960s and 1970s. And it has provided the Sports Mail with the perfect opportunity to engage in a bit of ‘Hammers bashing.’ with the piece arguing that a £14,000 pay off is scandalously low when one considers the following: the £100m minimum TV income this coming season and the ‘fact’ (in their words) that the club are ‘moving in to the publicly owned Olympic Stadium, for which they are being charged a peppercorn rent of £2.5m per year.’
From the report, it would appear that Tony Carr is not only upset with the redundancy, but also the fact that his exit has been handled exclusively by the club’s HR Department, rather than at a senior level. Indeed, Carr is quoted as stating that:
‘I am very disappointed because I still feel that I have a lot to offer and West Ham has become a way of life for me after all these years. The way it has been done with people from HR, who have been here hardly any time at all, was particularly disrespectful in my opinion. But that is the way of the world these days.’
As of Tuesday evening, the club had not made a comment in response, but the article quotes David Gold, at the time of Carr’s appointment as a club Ambassador, saying: ‘We are delighted that Tony has accepted this exciting new position, which is a fitting recognition for more than 40 years service.’
Well, that may well have been the case, but it also begs the question: what has changed so radically in the short period of time since David Gold made that statement? One must also seriously question whether HR staff would undertake such an action without the prior approval of a person(s) at a suitably senior level. Moreover, it is a huge PR own goal, which was totally avoidable. And it serves to seriously undermine the many positive developments at the the club. The Sports Mail article needs a response from the joint-Chairmen of the club. If it is true (which it would seem to be from Carr’s quotes), was this issue discussed at senior/board room level and who instructed the HR staff to pursue this course of action? Why has such a loyal and successful club servant been treated in such an unacceptable fashion?
I have always been largely supportive of the current board, their plans to stabilise the club and move to the Olympic Stadium. They have done a good job salvaging the club from the Icelandic era financial crisis and moving it forward to where we find ourselves today. But, at the end of the day, it must always be about being a ‘critical friend’ and reserving the right to constructively challenge and criticise as necessary.
As such, the club would be well-advised to apologise to Tony Carr and restore him forthwith to his former role as a club Ambassador. In the past (under former regimes) the club has allowed schisms to form with such club legends as Bobby Moore and Billy Bonds. This present board has done much to compensate for past mistakes and try to heal old divisions, recognising Moore’s iconic status as our greatest player, working closely with the Moore family/charities and bringing Billy Bonds back in to the West Ham fold. So, it would be ironic and deeply counter-productive if they were to now let a similar type of rift form between the club and Tony Carr. The club really should avoid treading that path once again!
SJ. Chandos.